160 réponses à ce sujet

[Rickin10]

Mr Tassi,

Firstly I'd just like to say thanks to you and the other writers at Forbes for actually, you know, doing some journalism.
The contrast between what you have written - thoughtful, researched, insightful - and the gaming press' reactionary bile  is tellingly stark.  It's truly sad that we gamers have to go to non-gaming sites to get anything objective anymore.

As a mature gamer (being playing games since the mid-80s), i've grown increasingly disillusioned, with almost all areas of the industry to the point where I wonder whether the pleasure I get is worth it anymore.

Publishers like EA represent so much of what is wrong.

So many games these days are watered-down generic derivatives, rushed out without being thoroughly play-tested.  Or if they are and found to have glaring, game-breaking bugs, they are simply released anyway, with the attitude: 'Well if enough people complain long and loudly enough we might just do you a favour and patch it.'  

I purchased 14 games in the last 12 months.  Only one of those (Arkham City) actually played like a finished product.  The Skyrim (PS3) debacle being a particular nadir.  And this comes back to the incestuous, back-scratching relationship between the Developers/publishers and the game sites.  Not only do gamers have to settle for heavily compromised 'reviews' by these sites, but because of the repulsive 'review embargos' gamers are left with a choice:  Purchase blindly in order to get the Collectors Edition with all the extras on release, or wait and miss out on all that in order to get any kind of verdict on the game before parting with their money.

We could talk about all the pre-release hype.  How much of what we read is actually even vaguley accurate?  The ME3 developer quotes (I'm not sure if you're aware of them all) set a whole new standard. Transcending the standard exageration in favour of blatent lies.  And I dont use that word lightly. The product we payed for did not even resemble what the developers represented.  You ally this to the gaming sites' 'previews' that are more like advertisements and the gamer is left bereft of any semblance of accurate information about a potential purchase.  It feels like what it is:  the game is rigged in order to fleece consumers to the maximum.

I'm bringing all this up because I hope if you continue to have an interest in covering gaming,  you'd delve deeper into the processes of how games are made, and decisions that affect them.  Artistic integrity is a term that Bioware has waved like an all-purpose flame-shield.  But having played through ME3 3 times, I'm highly sceptical about how many of the 'artistic' decisions were part of a 'pure vision' of what the devs wanted in order to end their trilogy.  

There's a lot of rushed, sloppyness in the game which should have been caught before release.  Many other aspects that seem like time-constrained cop-outs, and mass-market seeking features.  That's even before you start talking about all the dlc, how much it will set you back, and how you go about aquiring it.

In short, how much of what we got was the 'pure' artistic work of BIoware, and how much was 'input' from their masters, EA?  Even, how much was designed from fan-feedback as they claim?  How many compromises were made to this 'vision?'

Anyway, thank you very much for reading if you got this far.  I shall continue to monitor your articles with interest.

Rickin

[yesikareyes]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Mr. Tassi:

The Hold The Wallet movement is simple banding together for now. In the future, it can become more. For now, it is the simple idea of bonding to a cause, and rallying people to actually vote with their wallets, instead of doing so independantly and growing lax over time. With that in mind, would you say this is a good thing for consumers?

Paul Tassi:

I think it's good if people do in fact vote with their wallets when it comes to practices they don't like. It's the only thing that's going to make an impact.  

[yesikareyes]

colintheshaman wrote...

My Question:
Where do you see these trends going in the future? And how will it affect the development of games like Mass Effect 3?
*Edit*: Specifically, do you expect an increase or decrease in independent game development in the future? ("Real" games, ie not browser based, etc.) Will these trends affect existing publisher/developer relationships?

If this is too big of an issue for a simple answer I completely understand. Maybe it's something you could write more about in the future? With EA in the news for the "worst company" award and this Mass Effect 3 ending debacle, I think it's on a lot of people's minds. Either way thanks again, and keep up the good work!

Paul Tassi:

I see there being an increase in smaller publishers because of the ability to fundraise and produce games using small teams. That said, not all of them will be successful, and it's far riskier than a big studio releasing a new title. The fact is for games like Mass Effect, they simply cannot be made by a small studio. There are too many costs and too much goes into a game that deep where they NEED big studio money to realize the vision. Now, hopefully that money doesn't come with strings attached, but sometimes concessions have to be made (in this case, Day One Prothean DLC). And as smaller companies produce hits, bigger ones will try to buy them out. Just look at the mobile games scene, with Zynga buying up every company that makes a number one game. It's financially smart for these companies to sell for millions perhaps, but usually it hurts their future creativity in the process. You might say the same for EA/Bioware, but I don't think that Bioware has necessarily stopped producing good titles altogether because of the acquisition .

Modifié par yesikareyes, 08 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[yesikareyes]

Blazerer wrote...

Greetings Paul,

I'd like to ask several questions, if that is okay.

1) I read you considered the promised extended cut a 'victory for fans'

-
although I must admit Bioware taking action is a step in the right
direction. Do you personally feel that just an extended explanation of
the ending is enough to make up not only for earlier made promises that
were never fulfilled (16 different ending, important choices etc.) but
also for the long time it took them to react at all?

- Is the extended ending itself truly worthy to be called a victory?
ofcourse
we can only speculate what will be in this extended ending, however the
fact remains that Bioware stated time and time again that they would
not change the ending. Can foolharding on that part truly be called a
victory for the fans?

- Do you find it possible that this extended ending can salvage the game as it is?
I myself feel that no grade of extending can change the ending into an
ending, and that a whole new ending must be written. which leads to the
next question,

2) What is your opinion on boycotting studios to get a point across?
the
recently created group called '(with)HOLD THE WALLET' is trying to get
our point across in a way that really gets Bioware's/EA's attention:
their wallet. Although a small comunity as of now it is growing
steadily, making contacts with leaders from other groups as they go.

- Would you support such a group?
edit to clarify: Do you feel a group that uses boycot as a tactic would be in strife with personal morals/standards/beliefs on how to conduct oneself

- Do you think this will get more attention from Bioware than simply stating our displeasure?

In advance thanks for answering,
Blazerer

Paul Tassi:

I do think it is a victory, and should be celebrated as such. I understand that there are some fans who want the ENTIRE ending rewritten so there were 16 different variants and what not and that SHOULD have been what was in the final product. That said, for as badly as the ending was botched, it is UNHEARD of that protests from fans would cause a company to go back and alter the ending with FREE DLC in an attempt to please fans. They were never going to go back and reshoot the entire ending from the ground up, and to ask for that is not a realistic demand, especially after the free DLC has been announced. Fans are within their right to hate the ending, and even hate the "altered" endings with free DLC, but now that this compromise has been made, it's futile to expect more. And I would also say judgement should be reserved AT LEAST until the DLC  is actually out so we can all see what it contains.
As for boycotting companies you don't like, I think it's a very noble cause. I support anyone who wants to do that, and I do believe that is the best way to send a point across. The problem is that for every principled person who does so, there are 1,000 who don't care, so it's very hard to make a real impact. To answer the second part of that, no, I don't think that it's morally wrong or non-civil to boycott a company whose practices you disagree with. And yes, again, such a tactic will make the biggest impact IF enough people do it, but that's the real difficulty.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

One final question from me Paul:

Would you say a $10, but great fix is better than a free, but unsatisfactory fix?

And thank you for taking the time to talk with us. It is a rare opportunity indeed for the general public to speak with the press.

[Tovanus]

Glad to see this thread still around. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Tassi's opinion about what we got being a win for the fans. Not that I think there's much reason to make lots of noise anymore; I'm sure everything will die down and the matter is settled, but I think all in all Bioware went a bad route.

Here's my question: Has Mr. Tassi seen this video: Does it change his view of how this whole thing has ended? It's extremely well done, by the guy who has done the other "Understate Nerd Rage" videos.

His other video about "A Tale of Two Companies," regarding EA and Bioware's history, is also very good, if it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread. (I apologize if it has been and I missed it).

[yesikareyes]

Rickin10 wrote...

Mr Tassi,

In short, how much of what we got was the 'pure' artistic work of BIoware, and how much was 'input' from their masters, EA?  Even, how much was designed from fan-feedback as they claim?  How many compromises were made to this 'vision?'

Anyway, thank you very much for reading if you got this far.  I shall continue to monitor your articles with interest.

Rickin

Paul Tassi:

Honestly, I don't thing there's a huge conspiracy here. Some of the product was definitely rushed because of EA deadlines (the Jarvik content's existence as DLC is because of that), but they did manage to get the release pushed back to 2012, and any further was probably too much of a delay. And I think for many part of the game, they incorporated fan feedback, but obviously something went haywire with the ending. I think the original plan was to sell ending DLC, but when the reaction was too violent, that was crapped.

[yesikareyes]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

One final question from me Paul:

Would you say a $10, but great fix is better than a free, but unsatisfactory fix?

And thank you for taking the time to talk with us. It is a rare opportunity indeed for the general public to speak with the press.

Paul Tassi:

No, because that sets a worse precedent. Paying for the "good" ending is about the worst development I can think of in the industry.  

[yesikareyes]

Tovanus wrote...

Glad to see this thread still around. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Tassi's opinion about what we got being a win for the fans. Not that I think there's much reason to make lots of noise anymore; I'm sure everything will die down and the matter is settled, but I think all in all Bioware went a bad route.

Here's my question: Has Mr. Tassi seen this video: Does it change his view of how this whole thing has ended? It's extremely well done, by the guy who has done the other "Understate Nerd Rage" videos.

His other video about "A Tale of Two Companies," regarding EA and Bioware's history, is also very good, if it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread. (I apologize if it has been and I missed it).

Paul Tassi:

Well made video, and I agree with many points. Yes, the ending just SHOULD be entirely different, and never should have happened, but it's just not a realistic expectation that Bioware was going to do a rewrite, and protesting after the clarity DLC might show your displeasure, but it will not actually yield anything. 

[The_Crazy_Hand]

I was thinking more Broken Steel type DLC, then just paying for the endings alone, LOL

Though, I didn't make that clear.

I have another question based on the media flood today:

Based on EA's history (Dante's Inferno false protests namely), and based on the fact that Steve Cortez is far from the first openly gay character to appear in a game that sold well, and based on the timing with which EA chose to speak out (right after their golden poo award was won), do you think the media hype about homophobia and Mass Effect 3 is a deliberate deflection by EA?

To me, it looks highly suspicious.

[yesikareyes]

 Sorry for the late reply!

@The_Crazy_Hand

Paul Tassi:

Yes, it looks highly suspicious. It's great they're embracing the community and standing up against homophobia in gaming (it obviously does exist), but the timing is highly, highly suspect. But it can't exactly be proven, so I'm not going to go out and write a piece accusing them of that. I'll let gamers do that on their own.